Curve selection and Łojasiewicz inequalities

Human treatment: Guillaume Valette, On subanalytic geometry, arXiv:2507.23622v1, 31 July 2025, §2.2, with the Puiseux statement from Proposition 1.8.4. Adapted by GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI), Ultra, October 2026. This adapted component is CC BY 4.0; Guillaume Valette remains the author of the underlying exposition. Changes: notation and Markdown/MathML formatting; the vector in the inductive choice step is written explicitly; supremum, zero-fibre and uniform-constant details are supplied; the gradient proof explicitly chooses its final integer at least two. This adaptation implies no endorsement.

Throughout this treatment, definable means globally subanalytic. Sets and functions have this property in their ambient Euclidean spaces; a function has it when its graph does. We use the following underlying results from Valette’s Chapter 1: finite analytic cell decomposition, closure under Boolean operations and projections, and the one-variable Puiseux theorem. These are distinct prerequisites, not conclusions of the arguments below. The last says that a definable u:(0,η)→ℝu:(0,\eta)\to\mathbb R, on a smaller interval, has a convergent expansion

u(r)=∑i=m∞airi/p,m∈ℤ,p∈ℤ>0. u(r)=\sum_{i=m}^{\infty}a_i r^{i/p},\qquad m\in\mathbb Z,\quad p\in\mathbb Z_{>0}.

For a bounded uu, negative nonzero powers cannot occur. For finitely many bounded functions choose pp to be twice a common denominator of their Puiseux exponents. Then all u(tp)u(t^p) are analytic across zero and agree with the actual compositions for both signs of the parameter. Cell decomposition and Boolean/projection closure also make derivatives, distance functions and bounded fibrewise suprema definable. For example, the graph of a supremum consists of the pairs (r,s)(r,s) for which ss is an upper bound and every smaller number fails to be an upper bound; this is a formula with quantifiers over a definable graph.

The analytic finiteness treatment proves the real Noetherian, Artin–Rees, Krull, formal-linear and finite-coefficient steps behind preparation, reusing the existing analytic division provider. Its later sections now prove the full cell, complement, one-variable Puiseux and parameterized Puiseux providers under the stated projective product convention. We use those proved inputs here.

Definable choice

Let A⊂ℝm×ℝnA\subset\mathbb R^m\times\mathbb R^n be definable, and let BB be its projection to ℝm\mathbb R^m. There is a definable f:B→ℝnf:B\to\mathbb R^n with (x,f(x))∈A(x,f(x))\in A.

Proof. We prove it by induction on nn. First let n=1n=1. Take a cylindrical cell decomposition compatible with AA, refining the base decomposition as necessary. Over a base cell in BB, select one of the finitely many cells in AA that projects onto it. For a graph, take its defining function. For a band with finite endpoints ζ<ζ′\zeta<\zeta', take (ζ+ζ′)/2(\zeta+\zeta')/2. For endpoints ζ,+∞\zeta,+\infty, take ζ+1\zeta+1; for −∞,ζ′-\infty,\zeta', take ζ′−1\zeta'-1; for two infinite endpoints, take zero. Each choice lies in the fibre. Combining the finitely many base cells gives a definable function.

For the induction, project AA onto its first m+n−1m+n-1 coordinates and call the image A′A'. The induction hypothesis selects g:B→ℝn−1g:B\to\mathbb R^{n-1} in A′A'. The one-coordinate case selects h:A′→ℝh:A'\to\mathbb R with (x,z,h(x,z))∈A(x,z,h(x,z))\in A. Then

f(x)=(g(x),h(x,g(x))) f(x)=\bigl(g(x),h(x,g(x))\bigr)

is the required vector. Its graph is definable by Boolean operations and projection. ▫\square

Continuity of this selection is not asserted over all of BB. On a sufficiently small one-dimensional interval, cell decomposition and Puiseux expansion provide the regularity used next.

Curve selection

Let A⊂ℝnA\subset\mathbb R^n be definable and x0∈A¯x_0\in\overline A. There is an analytic arc γ:[0,ϵ)→ℝn\gamma:[0,\epsilon)\to\mathbb R^n, analytic across its endpoint, with γ(0)=x0\gamma(0)=x_0 and γ(r)∈A\gamma(r)\in A for 0<r<ϵ0<r<\epsilon.

Proof. Apply definable choice to

{(r,x):0<r<1,x∈A,|x−x0|<r}. \{(r,x):0<r<1,\ x\in A,\ |x-x_0|<r\}.

Every positive r<1r<1 has a nonempty fibre. We obtain a definable selection β(r)\beta(r) with |β(r)−x0|<r|\beta(r)-x_0|<r. Thus it is bounded and tends to x0x_0. Apply the Puiseux theorem to its finitely many coordinates. A common denominator pp and a smaller interval make γ(t)=β(tp)\gamma(t)=\beta(t^p) analytic at zero; its constant term is x0x_0. The positive points stay in AA. The convergent power series supplies the stated analytic extension across zero. ▫\square

An inequality detected by arcs

Let f,g:A→ℝf,g:A\to\mathbb R be definable functions on a definable set. Assume ff is bounded. Assume also that along every definable arc γ:(0,ϵ)→A\gamma:(0,\epsilon)\to A,

g(γ(t))→0⇒f(γ(t))→0. g(\gamma(t))\longrightarrow0 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad f(\gamma(t))\longrightarrow0.

Then there are a positive integer NN and C>0C>0 such that

|f(x)|N≤C|g(x)|(x∈A). |f(x)|^N\le C|g(x)|\qquad(x\in A).

Proof. Replace the functions by their absolute values. Constant arcs show that g(x)=0g(x)=0 implies f(x)=0f(x)=0. For r>0r>0 in g(A)g(A), define

ϕ(r)=sup⁡{f(x):x∈A,g(x)=r}. \phi(r)=\sup\{f(x):x\in A,\ g(x)=r\}.

It is finite by boundedness and definable by the supremum formula. If it did not tend to zero as rr tends to zero in its domain, some δ>0\delta>0 would have arbitrarily small positive rr with ϕ(r)>δ\phi(r)>\delta. Definable choice would select x(r)x(r) with g(x(r))=rg(x(r))=r and f(x(r))>δf(x(r))>\delta. A definable subset of the line with zero as an accumulation point contains a positive interval ending at zero. Shrinking that interval, the selection is an arc by cell decomposition. It violates the hypothesis. Therefore ϕ(r)→0\phi(r)\to0.

If positive values of gg stay away from zero, boundedness of ff proves the result immediately. Otherwise its positive range contains (0,η)(0,\eta). If ϕ\phi vanishes on a smaller such interval, the same argument applies outside it. In the remaining case Puiseux expansion gives

ϕ(r)=arα+higher powers,a>0,α∈ℚ>0. \phi(r)=a r^\alpha+\text{higher powers},\qquad a>0,\quad \alpha\in\mathbb Q_{>0}.

Thus ϕ(r)≤Drα\phi(r)\le D r^\alpha for small r>0r>0. Choose N≥1/αN\ge1/\alpha, shrink so r<1r<1, and obtain f(x)N≤DNg(x)f(x)^N\le D^N g(x) for these fibres. On g≥η>0g\ge\eta>0, a bound f≤Mf\le M gives fN≤(MN/η)gf^N\le(M^N/\eta)g. The zero fibres were already checked. Taking the larger constant proves the claim. ▫\square

In particular, for continuous definable f,gf,g on a compact definable AA, the condition g−1(0)⊂f−1(0)g^{-1}(0)\subset f^{-1}(0) suffices. Indeed, a bounded definable arc has a limit by coordinatewise Puiseux expansion. Compactness puts that limit in AA; continuity and the zero-set inclusion give the required implication along every arc.

The gradient inequality

Let M⊂ℝnM\subset\mathbb R^n be a definable C1C^1 submanifold, and let f:M→ℝf:M\to\mathbb R be a definable C1C^1 function. Write ∇Mf\nabla_M f for its gradient in the metric induced from Euclidean space. Suppose a∈M¯a\in\overline M and ff extends continuously at aa. There are C>0C>0, a rational ρ∈(0,1)\rho\in(0,1), and a neighborhood of aa such that

|f(x)−f(a)|ρ≤C|∇Mf(x)|(x∈M). |f(x)-f(a)|^\rho\le C|\nabla_M f(x)|\qquad(x\in M).

Proof of the preliminary radial estimate. First we prove

|f(x)−f(a)|≤C0|x−a||∇Mf(x)| |f(x)-f(a)|\le C_0|x-a|\,|\nabla_M f(x)|

near aa. Translate so that a=0,f(a)=0a=0,f(a)=0. If no such uniform constant existed, definable choice applied to increasingly bad ratios would supply a definable arc γ(s)→0\gamma(s)\to0 on which

|γ(s)||∇Mf(γ(s))||f(γ(s))|→0,f(γ(s))≠0. \frac{|\gamma(s)|\,|\nabla_M f(\gamma(s))|}{|f(\gamma(s))|}\longrightarrow0, \qquad f(\gamma(s))\ne0.

One can select with |γ(s)|<s|\gamma(s)|<s and the ratio <s<s. Puiseux expansions give γ(s)=bsk+⋯\gamma(s)=bs^k+\cdots, b≠0,k>0b\ne0,k>0, and f(γ(s))=dsq+⋯f(\gamma(s))=d s^q+\cdots, d≠0,q>0d\ne0,q>0. If the gradient vanished identically along the arc, the chain rule would make f∘γf\circ\gamma constant, contrary to its nonzero values and zero limit. Otherwise write ∇Mf(γ(s))=csℓ+⋯\nabla_M f(\gamma(s))=c s^\ell+\cdots, c≠0c\ne0. The chain rule and Cauchy–Schwarz give

|(f∘γ)′(s)|≤|∇Mf(γ(s))||γ′(s)|. |(f\circ\gamma)'(s)| \le|\nabla_M f(\gamma(s))|\,|\gamma'(s)|.

Comparison of leading powers forces q−1≥ℓ+k−1q-1\ge \ell+k-1, so q≥k+ℓq\ge k+\ell. The purported ratio consequently has order k+ℓ−q≤0k+\ell-q\le0 and cannot tend to zero. This contradiction proves the uniform estimate, including points where the gradient is zero.

From the radial estimate to the exponent. Choose a bounded neighborhood on which the radial estimate holds. It implies that a zero gradient has value f(a)f(a). On the definable set VV where the gradient is nonzero, put

G(x)=|f(x)−f(a)||∇Mf(x)|,H(x)=|f(x)−f(a)|. G(x)=\frac{|f(x)-f(a)|}{|\nabla_M f(x)|}, \qquad H(x)=|f(x)-f(a)|.

The radial estimate makes GG bounded. We check that H→0H\to0 along any definable arc in VV implies G→0G\to0. Such an arc is bounded and has a limit bb. For a constant arc with H→0H\to0, G=0G=0. For a nonconstant arc with nonzero HH, Puiseux expansions yield constants D>0,α∈ℚ>0D>0,\alpha\in\mathbb Q_{>0} such that H(γ(t))≤D|γ(t)−b|αH(\gamma(t))\le D|\gamma(t)-b|^\alpha. The arc lies eventually in the open submanifold

M′={x∈V:H(x)<2D|x−b|α}. M'=\{x\in V:H(x)<2D|x-b|^\alpha\}.

On M′M', the restriction of ff extends continuously at bb with value f(a)f(a). Its intrinsic gradient equals ∇Mf\nabla_M f, because M′M' is open in MM. The radial estimate applied at bb gives G(γ(t))≤Cb|γ(t)−b|→0G(\gamma(t))\le C_b|\gamma(t)-b|\to0. If HH is identically zero on the arc, G=0G=0 directly.

The preceding arc inequality applied to G,HG,H now gives GN≤D1HG^N\le D_1H. Increase NN to at least two if necessary: boundedness of GG preserves such an inequality after increasing the exponent and the constant. At H>0H>0, substitution and taking NN-th roots give

H1−1/N≤D11/N|∇Mf|. H^{1-1/N}\le D_1^{1/N}|\nabla_M f|.

At H=0H=0 the desired inequality holds directly. Set ρ=1−1/N∈(0,1)∩ℚ\rho=1-1/N\in(0,1)\cap\mathbb Q. This proves the gradient inequality. ▫\square

The foundational cell and Puiseux theorems remain the explicit inputs of this treatment. No assertion about a globally finite triangulation of an arbitrary noncompact analytic manifold follows from these definable statements.